How trump Might Not Be Guilty

Robert Mueller wrote that he did not pursue trump, in part because he was unable to prove to himself beyond a reasonable doubt that trump displayed criminal intent. In the vast evidence, I see a few instances of a guilty mind at work, instances which argue forcefully that trump is guilty. I simply can’t believe that Mr. Mueller and company would have missed this guilty mind evidence. However, there is often more to intent than this.

I am left to guess that Mr. Mueller’s possibility of a lack of intent involves trump’s psychological state. A lack of either mental or emotional capacity could result in a verdict of diminished or absent responsibility, in other words, ‘not guilty’. Or, as we non-shrinks/non-lawyers say, “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”

To test my guess, I would like to know whether or not the Special Prosecutor’s investigators interviewed a team of psychologists and psychiatrists. I would also like to know what our expert panel of Trail riders think. Guilty or Not ?

33 thoughts on “How trump Might Not Be Guilty”

x-r, thank you for the thread topic. I assumed (and did not edit) your little “t” for the twit was on purpose since words in the rest of the title were capitalized.

as to Mueller’s motive, imo he took seriously the doj guideline that it is a no-no to indict or even say out loud in an official report that a prez is guilty of a crime. however, he did strongly hint it in order for the congress critters to do their duty under the constitution.

XR, the other reason he did not offer an opinion about SFB’s guilt and for not trying to charge SFB cited by Mueller is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president. Now, I am a lawyer and I am trained and practiced as a counselor as my first career, with a fairly deep concentration in psychology. The man is nutz, but I don’t believe his own brand of insanity renders him incapable of knowing that his actions are right or wrong. It’s the modern application of the M’Naghten Rule. As Findlaw explains:

The M’Naghten Rule (or test) was established by the English House of Lords in the mid-19th Century and states that:

“Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and … that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.”

Basically, this test focuses on whether a criminal defendant knew the nature of the crime or understood right from wrong at the time it was committed. Thus, in order to be declared legally insane under this test, a defendant must meet one of these two distinct criteria.

In applying this test, courts may differ as to whether the “wrong” in question refers to moral or legal wrong (or both). Additionally, some states have eliminated the criteria which defines a defendant as legally insane for not fully understanding what they’ve done.

He is crazy, and he is evil, but he knows what he’s doing and he believes it’s right. He isn’t “not guilty by reason of insanity“.

Hillary Clinton: Mueller documented a serious crime against all Americans. Here’s how to respond.

Our election was corrupted, our democracy assaulted, our sovereignty and security violated. This is the definitive conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report. It documents a serious crime against the American people.

The debate about how to respond to Russia’s “sweeping and systematic” attack — and how to hold President Trump accountable for obstructing the investigation and possibly breaking the law — has been reduced to a false choice: immediate impeachment or nothing. History suggests there’s a better way to think about the choices ahead.

Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say I’m not the right messenger. But my perspective is not just that of a former candidate and target of the Russian plot. I am also a former senator and secretary of state who served during much of Vladi­mir Putin’s ascent, sat across the table from him and knows firsthand that he seeks to weaken our country.

I am also someone who, by a strange twist of fate, was a young staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate impeachment inquiry in 1974, as well as first lady during the impeachment process that began in 1998. And I was a senator for New York after 9/11, when Congress had to respond to an attack on our country. Each of these experiences offers important lessons for how we should proceed today.

First, like in any time our nation is threatened, we have to remember that this is bigger than politics. What our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not reflexive partisanship. Whether they like it or not, Republicans in Congress share the constitutional responsibility to protect the country. Mueller’s report leaves many unanswered questions — in part because of Attorney General William P. Barr’s redactions and obfuscations. But it is a road map. It’s up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation’s interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.

[… she goes on to give a second, third and fourth suggestion “Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment” and “Third, Congress can’t forget that the issue today is not just the president’s possible obstruction of justice — it’s also our national security” and “Fourth, while House Democrats pursue these efforts, they also should stay focused on the sensible agenda that voters demanded in the midterms, from protecting health care to investing in infrastructure” then concludes…]

We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn’t just a reckoning about our recent history; it’s also a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America’s future. And, unless he’s held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office. He will likely redouble his efforts to advance Putin’s agenda, including rolling back sanctions, weakening NATO and undermining the European Union.

Of all the lessons from our history, the one that’s most important may be that each of us has a vital role to play as citizens. A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it. Now it’s up to us to prove the wisdom of our Constitution, the resilience of our democracy and the strength of our nation.

“Deranged Donald is at back at it again. Deranged Donald can do things like this and it’s not even the top of the news, because it gets lost beneath all of the other deranged things Deranged Donald does,” Conway wrote on Twitter, including the hashtag “#DerangedDonald.”

Conway was responding to a Wednesday report from The Washington Post about Trump’s suggestion that the United Kingdom had helped the Obama administration spy on his 2016 presidential campaign.

Conway also wrote that “Deranged Donald” does not read books composed of the “accurate, highly valuable, top secret information” compiled for him because they don’t “have lots of pictures and tell him how great he is.”

And Trump’s team may not care if their legal argument ultimately falls in court if it ties up the Democratic oversight probes while drawing Democrats into a political fight that Republicans think they can win.

One former Trump White House official described it as an effort to “fight fire with fire” and turn Democrats’ tactics against them.

“These are political hearings,” the official said. “Trump got a legal and political colonoscopy by Mueller. If there was a ‘there’ there, we’d probably know about it. This is just Benghazi in reverse.”

[continues]

speaking of those interminable Benghazi hearings, perhaps the new ones on the twit could be called the dems’ “trump-ghazi” effort. wonder who will play the gowdy role.

I don’t get this “one can’t indict a sitting president” crappola. Are you telling me (us) that trump could cut the throat of a baby while laughing live on tv and no one could do anything about it. Or he could go out on fifth avenue in NYC and shoot someone in cold blood and no one would be able to hold him accountable while he sits in office.

RR, you call bullshit appropriately. The DoJ “policy” that DoJ cannot indict a sitting president is based on, hmmm, let me see, political calculations. Let’s take the Comey probe just as a f’rinstance. It demonstrates exactly why the NIXON DoJ Office of Legal Counsel offered that opinion – which is based on faulty legal reasoning – and it was expanded upon by the Clinton DoJ in a 39 page opinion (in part because since the Constitution provides for impeachment that is the ONLY recourse the government has against a president). Like you, I call bullshit. From a practical standpoint James Comey is exhibit one – the President can fire anyone who he or she thinks is getting too close to his/her criminal activities and may be considering seeking an indictment. Nixon did it, trump did it. History was unkind to Nixon – it will be unkind to SFB.

The “Executive summary” of the 39 page opinion from the Clinton DoJ, authored by Randolph D. Moss, Assistant AG, Office of Legal Counsel (Now US District Judge, DC Circuit) is:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

October 16, 2000

Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

BTW, the 1973 DoJ memo that the 2000 memo reviewed was based upon the application of Spiro Agnew to be declared immune from prosecution based on the grand jury impaneled against him. The opinion that Nixon wouldn’t be amenable to prosecution was authored by Robert BORK – then Solicitor General.

pat, the important part of oversight is not IMHO the impeachment, but rather the impeachment inquiry – the hearings held by house committees to determine whether there exist bases for filing articles of impeachment. That’s where the fun is. Popcorn, please.

Won’t do an “official” derby column this year, but if you want to indicate your preferences, I’ll keep track. Post position draw hasn’t happened as yet and there may be replacements if a space opens in the 20 lineup.

pogo, yes the hearings are what’s important. starting the impeachment process might be the only way to get the witnesses necessary for those hearings. given the latest move, the trumpsters are throwing roadblocks in the way of normal oversight.

House Democrats are grappling with how to respond to President Trump’s blanket resistance to cooperating with their investigations — defiance that legal experts say could upend the nation’s fundamental principle of checks and balances.

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) announced plans on Tuesday to hold one Trump administration official who defied a subpoena in contempt of Congress and has threatened a second with the same punishment if he failed to show for a Thursday deposition. And with Trump promising to bar all former and current aides from testifying, the House began confronting the possibility of issuing multiple contempt citations and initiating civil litigation to defend its oversight role.

“This is a massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction,” Cummings said in a statement Wednesday.

[…]

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight Committee, said Trump’s moves are “triggering a constitutional crisis” and argued that the White House posture shouldn’t just concern Democrats but Republicans as well. The House, he said, should revisit the idea of instructing the sergeant at arms to find and jail those who defy subpoenas until they relent, a step Congress hasn’t taken since the 1870s.

“If [Trump] were to prevail in this fight, then you will permanently debase the role of the legislative branch of government and fundamentally alter the constitutional framework,” Connolly said. “We cannot let that happen. . . . The consequences would radically alter the balance of power in our government.”

[…]

Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, called Trump’s rebuff of subpoenas “a serious escalation of the president’s effort to defy congressional oversight of the executive branch” and “a deep erosion of the fundamental precepts of the balance of power enshrined in the constitution by our framers.” He noted that the constitution makes clear that “the president and the executive branch are subject to oversight by the Congress.”

“You can’t have a president acting as though he is the monarch,” he said.

Jamie… put me down for War of Will…. as KGC said… this is now a war between trump, his supporters… and normal people.

patd… I know what the impeachment articles say…. my point is that some are saying the president can’t be held accountable for a crime. And by crime… I don’t mean high crimes and misdemeanors …. which is whatever the Congress says it is. I mean actual crimes like murder. What if trump did what I said above and the the Senate… being controlled by Republicans… didn’t want to vote to remove him. Does that mean he’d get to be president as a murderer. That’s not a democracy or a republic… that’s an effing banana republic.

As people say shit like SFB has a right to defy subpoenas, you might refer to US v. Nixon. The central holding:

Question
Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

Conclusion

No. The [unanimous Supreme] Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.” Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

renee, guess I was hung up on the word “accountable” as in the public shaming sense of his not being free of having dirty linen exposed to the public. as far as the punishment side of the word, there isn’t any penalty harsh enough to make up for what he’s done to the country – well, maybe the old native American way of burying up to the neck, pouring honey on his head to attract a few nasty critters and leaving him there a few days to marinate and contemplate his sins.

no way did i mean to insinuate you weren’t up on basic civics and constitutional goings on. sorry I sounded like an arrogant asshole.

US v. Nixon is required reading in the current situation. I need to go back and read it again. My foggy recollection is that ex presidents enjoy pretty broad immunity for acts done in the course of their presidency and that may extend to criminal acts and the immunity attaches for subsequent prosecutions for those acts. But I need to read it again since it’s been @ 25 years since I read it.

To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace.

The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

A bad peace is even worse than war.

It belongs to human nature to hate those you have injured.

Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.

Reason and judgment are the qualities of a leader.

Things forbidden have a secret charm.

A desire to resist oppression is implanted in the nature of man.

In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.

. Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty. Custom adapts itself to expediency. When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be good or bad. Old things are always in good repute, present things in disfavor.

Post navigation

Contraptions

Our Mission

Founded in 2005, Trail Mix is a an ad-free news commenting forum hosted by Craig Crawford and supported by user donations for the sole purpose of encouraging civil discourse for all points of view. Opinions expressed in posts and comments are the author's own.